Say It Ain't So, Joe

So you still find away to bash the Democrats, eh Scherer?

Lieberman joins his fellow neoconservatives in pushing for a continuation of the Bush Doctrine.

Cross-posted from below:

McCain is more more more of the catastrophic Bush doctrine:

"Randy Scheunemann is McCain's new defense and foreign policy adviser. He is a former adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He was President of the pre-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein.

"Steve Schmidt, is McCain's high powered new political strategist. He worked on Bush's 2004 campaign and was Bush's attack dog whenever former Presidential candidate John Kerry criticized the Iraq War policy. They join other neocons on McCain's campaign like former CIA director James Woolsey.

"[James] Woolsey helped direct US attention toward Iraq after 9/11 when on the next day he falsely accused the Iraqi Government of having a role in it.

"Joining Scheunemann, a veteran neoconservative strategist and one of the chief architects of the Iraq War, are a panoply of like-minded neocons who've gathered to advise McCain, including Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Gary Schmitt and Maj. Ralph Peters."

Source: Robert Dreyfuss

Lieberman's been sitting at the neocon table for some years now. He can wrongly pontificate all he wants about the Democrats, it is Lieberman himself who changed his stripes, not us.

I'm not sure that McCain could come up with a less effective advocate that Lieberman.
Lieberman's supporters are The Corner and their ilk.
As a Democrat I hope he is out campaigning everyday for McCain.

Also as a Minneapolis resident I would like to note that the convention is in St Paul. Thank God.

Thanks Paul-no. Changed to Twin Cities.

In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

See that's the problem with that "reality-based" thinking. The fact that it insists on gauging American foreign policy on its merits and actually evaluating results rather than simply assuming that if America is doing it, it must be good really stikes some people as "warped". The fun-house mirror strikes again.

Lieberman is ready to go invade Iran, like, *right now*:

"Lieberman: Can't We Invade Iran Yet?
By Spencer Ackerman - September 11, 2007, 4:37PM

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) doesn't think Gen. Petraeus has enough war on his hands. The senator (changing the subject from Iraq with "I want to go to Iran...") asked Petraeus if he wanted "the authority" from Congress to "pursue the Qods forces into Iranian territory." Petraeus, for some reason, politely declined to start a third contemporaneous U.S. war."

Source: Talking Points Memo - video at this link

Lieberman has been drinking the neocon koolaid for several years now. Even his hometown paper has disavowed Neocon Joe.

Sure Twin Cites, Saint Paul. It's all the same. I'm going to guess this will be your first time here.

Back on topic --if Lieberman's main "strength" is advocation a position (War:Iraq or Iran) that is wildly unpopular what exactly does he bring? The aura if not the reality of bipartisanship? Wouldn't he have to at some point in the last 4 years said something not insulting about Democrats?

Right now: The Republican Party has no credibility on forigen policy issues at all. This will be come abudnantly clear after we have a democratic nominee who will be able to press a case against McCain cleanly.

Liberman doesn't surprise me at all. He nearly got caught in the wave in 2006; if the democrats hadn't campaigned for him and supported him Lamont may be in office now. As it stands, he's likely going to lose his position come November and his only hope is a McCain adminstration where he can go before he has to face the voters again in 2011.

Liberman hasn't been a democrat in a long, long time.

Did Al Gore know Lieberman was basically a Republican when he picked him for the VP nomination in 2000? He's better than Cheney, but it is still amazing that Democrats were willing to put this guy a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Presidential candidates need to take their VP choices more seriously...

Can we say goodbye Reagan Democrats??? Just got to love it!!

--if Lieberman's main "strength" is advocation a position (War:Iraq or Iran) that is wildly unpopular what exactly does he bring? The aura if not the reality of bipartisanship?

Well you know, Paul-NNTO, that kind of "bipartisanship" gives David Broder, Richard Cohen and the all the DC elites warm and fuzzy feelings going up their leg. (Or is it going *down* their leg? I forget.)

As a Minneapolis resident, I have to say it would be a very strange thing for the Repugs to have a convention in one of the bluest cities in the US. And even though St Paul is considered more conservative, the metro area as a whole is not fertile territory for the current brand of Repugs.

I remember in 2000 when the pundits were fawning all over Lieberman and Cheney after their debates, suggesting those two would make much better presidents than the ones running. Comments like that really show how insular the MSM is and how difficult it is for them to make accurate character assessments.

Lieberman is obsessed with Iraq, just like McCain. And just like McCain his obsession prevents him from having any real insight to what is going on and how damaging the US presense there is to achieving and maintaining long-term stability.

Lieberman is a bitter, angry man who figures he has nothing to lose; he threw in his lot with these jokers and now he has nowhere else to go, politically speaking.

It was a bad decision by Gore, no question. I think he felt in that climate he needed an "anti-Bill Clinton" on the ticket. Probably Gore's biggest mistake in the campaign.

James, you forgot Poland! (Our own Joe Klein loves him some sensible "moderates")

St Paul is the republican half. I can see why Hennpin county residents would not be pleased to be grouped in this way.

I've lived in both towns when I was at the U, although very near the St Paul campus, so didn't really get to know that burg.

I liked Lieberman better when he played the father on "Alf."

Lieberman always talks like he has a cold.

Al Gore didn't pick Lieberman btw. He was assigned by his DLC handlers.

Stick to talking about John Hughes movies, Michael. You're out of your depth here.

No one outside the Beltway cares what Baghdad Joe has to say about anything.

Can we say goodbye Reagan Democrats???

Can we say "ate lead paint as a child"?

Holy Joe is the sellout, not the Democratic Party. Prepare to get kicked out of the caucus when we get more than 51 Senate seats, Joe.

Ahh who can forget Joe's insight in 2002
"• Why not just authorize the president to take military action to disarm the Iraqis instead of giving him a "blank check"?

Our resolution does not give the president a blank check. It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002391

Sorry Chief, Missed it by thatmuch!

PNNTO-Joe Lieberman want to invade Poland too? I did not know that. I'll add that to my McCain-Lieberman repertoire.

A Sunday morning Lieberman-bashing par-tay. Lots of fun and lots of hits for Michael. More red meat!

It's hard without a scorecard, James. Next think you know Richard Mellon Scaife will come out for Clinton.
Wait for it...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_559659.html

Lets not waste time on Lieberman. He still has to hold a hearing on Homeland Security: perhaps Michael can advise him to keep himself occupied on that Committee and keep his nose out of Democratic politics and fact check McCain!

Yeah, I saw that one PNNTO. He's not really *for* Clinton, just changed his view of her.

Of course, his ex took most of his money so he can't fund as many smear campaigns against her anyhoo.

One topic Lieberman won't be discussing in his role as Homeland Security Senate Chair-
Jan. 11, 2007 - Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush's new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

It's not just foreign policy where Lieberman has sold out his country.

PNNTO - I'm with you on this one. The more Joementum is out campaigning with McCain, the better. Lieberman did McCain no favors when he gave the media footage of him correcting McCain over his (intentional) gaffe about Al Qaeda being trained in Iran. The visuals of these two together are just great.

So would McCain make a daring play to his base and put Joe on the ticket?
Just typing that I can sense the Beltway leaning back and having a cigarette.

But who would Joe bring with him? It might play to McCain's base (the media) but not to the Republican base. Joe is still fairly liberal on social issues.

I was half kidding KathyR. Although Joe's reputation as being socially liberal is vastly overstated and the crowd at The Corner love Joe if they are representative of any Republican group.
And if Joe Scarborough is correct and 2008 will be like 1964 the number of candidates willing to sign on to the ticket may be few so who knows?

After the next election cycle, the Ds will have less use for big Joe. He'll go from saying odd things in news interviews to just saying odd things.

He really needs McCain to win so he can be offered an appointment so he can continue to say odd things in news interviews.

Fox News Contributer will be his title after this term.

McCain and Lieberman represent a kind of American death wish. Their goal is to fight unending wars against EVIL, and if no nation currently fits the part, they will force the adversary into the role. They will do this until our treasury is empty and/or we are struck by nuclear weapons.

Let's see how this works:

Aha! Chavez was giving money to Colombian guerrillas. Everyone knows guerrillas are TERRORISTS. Chavez is a friend of terrorists. We must invade Venezuela to fight EVIL!

- or -

Oho! China is repressing Buddhists in Tibet. Buddhists are good religious people and the Chinese are godless heathens. We must invade Tibet to defend their religious freedom and fight EVIL!

You get the Idea.

No worries HH Dean Broder has a column today -titled "His Own Man" of course-that assures us that McCain isn't like that. He's no W.
The Dean also mentions that McCain was a Viet Nam POW which I didn't know.
What value the Washington media brings the masses.

PNNTO - oops, missed the jest. This would be a great year for someone to be on ticket, don't you think? If McCain wins they'd be poised to run on their own (probably in 4 years) and if McCain loses, the Republicans really do have a tendency to give it to the next in line.

Chavez was giving money to Colombian guerrillas. Everyone knows guerrillas are TERRORISTS.

Hey wait a minute. Weren't the Contras a right-wing guerrilla group who terrorized the people of Nicaragua? And weren't a lot of people in the Bush Administration involved in giving money to the Contras? And didn't that money come from selling arms to (gasp) IRAN who was even then a state sponsor of terror?

Iran Contra felons who Poppy Bush pardoned who resurfaced under the Dubya Administration.
* Elliott Abrams:[53] under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
* John Negroponte:[55] under Bush, served as the Ambassador to Iraq, the National Intelligence Director, and the Deputy Secretary of State.
* Admiral John Poindexter:[56] under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran Contra found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
* Charles E. Allen:[57] under Bush, appointed in August 2005 to be chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Allen's position at DHS was not subject to Senate confirmation. Prior to the DHS appointment, Allen had worked 47 years at the CIA. Director of Central Intelligence William Webster formally reprimanded Allen for failing to fully comply with the DCI's request for full cooperation in the agency's internal Iran-Contra scandal investigation. However, coworkers of Allen pointed out that Webster reprimanded the one person in the CIA who had brought his suspicions of a funds diversion to Robert Gates. [Eclipse: The Last Days of the CIA, Mark Perry, 1992, p. 216.]
(source: Wikipedia)

I guess it's okay to sponsor terror if you are a Republican.

Of course it's okay for them. And which pardons were a bigger deal? Those or Marc Rich?
There are always two sets of rules.

Ken Silverstein offers up a critique of Broder in his definitive piece David Broder’s Golden Anniversary: Commemorating a Quarter-century of Hackery

As to Broder, he’s so predictable that he’s well beyond caricature, as my colleague Scott Horton has documented. But some younger readers may imagine that there was a Golden Age of David Broder, when he offered penetrating analysis about national politics.

There was not. I went back a quarter-century, to Broder’s columns from 1982, and he was just as hilariously ill-informed then as he is today, and for the same reasons: he mistakes the views of a narrow range of insiders for public opinion.

Silverstein liberally quotes from the Historical Broder, including his work defending the above referenced Iran Contra. Recommended reading for Broderites.

I no longer read anything Broder writes. Doing so only raises my blood pressure and as he never has anything insightful to say there's no reason to endanger my health.

Marc Rich, that was the worst pardon EVER because CLINTON DID IT !!!11!

During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages

(source: wikipedia)

I'm just a fountain of Historical Republican Hypocrisy today, aren't I? I blame Lieberman for that.

This is Lieberman making a Republican general election argument, and it is notable for its scope. He is not just condemning his party's position on Iraq, or praising McCain, his long-time friend. He is condemning in sweeping language the very core identity of the Democratic Party as weak and extremist.

I'll bet the far left just LOVES Joe Liberman.

Awesome link James. My favorite part-
"In other words, Nixon was not to blame for Watergate, George McGovern and the Democrats were."

If nothing else, I am not proud to say that, Broder's Washington Post picture always makes me laugh.

It's *always* the Democrats' fault.

I love how Joe says this after National Democrats threw Lamont under the bus in a rush to support him, since he's 'one of them'.

Joe, the Democrats, at least the sane ones, are doing one thing as far as the 'Great War' and our overarching ineffective attitude toward terrorism goes: LISTENING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Sorry Joe, but the minute you started selling your own over this war, you stopped representing not only your constituents, but the American People as a whole.

Oh, yes, I forgot to add, too...

Since WHEN in the hell has the Democratic Party EVER been in the throes of the 'far left' in the way that the Republicans have blatantly catered to the far right?

The fact that Lieberman insinuates that 'leftists' have hijacked the party shows 1) how far the goalposts have been moved, and 2) how drunk he's gotten off the kool-aid.

It certainly would be helpful if Joe had named names and policies that he deemed "far left" and "hyper partisan".
I'm guessing he thinks not giving the telecoms immunity is "far left"

This is the same Lieberman who whispered in McCain's ear right? http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/21/views-on-the-weekly-news-2/

Want an example of media bias?

Joe Lieberman gets a lot more attention than Lincoln Chafee

Yeah, Lieberman does have the infamy of being a former VP nominee, but the loss to Lamont in the primary and his change in party affiliation should really undernine him from being viewed as anything more than a disgruntled employee who was fired by the party faithful.

Linc Chafee has written a book, has been campaigning for Obama, but the press seems to not want to give that any attention.

Nor do they wish to give attention to the fact that Chuck Hagel is declining to endorse his buddy Obama.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hagel endorses Obama in the general election and ends up being his defense secretary.

This is bad news for Democrats.

Having a crazed neocon dust off his Catskills night club routine at the Republican National Convention will be a dagger through the heart of the Democratic party. Only a dirty hippie could be naive enough to believe otherwise.

The best thing about the 2008 election will be when we get more seats in the Senate and can kick him out of the Democratic Caucus. He will not be welcome to side with Democrats any longer. And 2006 will be the last election he will ever win. Goodbye Joe. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Michael, I'm assuming you were under orders to post something, ANYTHING this morning, but really, you couldn't do better than this? Ohhhh, Joe Lieberman is this election cycle's Zell Miller? That's some deep analysis there MS. YOu mean the GOP is going w/ the GOP is super-duper patriotic and understands that it is simply impossible for the US to lose wars and the Dems just hate America meme? Thanx, never would have figured it by myself. Yes Michael, Zell Miller huffed and puffed in 2004 to some success, and of course nothing, absolutely nothing has changed since '04, not the mood of the country certainly. Good call MS. And the comparisons between McCain and JFK are spot on, good thing you didn't throw any cold water on that one lest you be seen as obtuse.

Have you figured out which tattoo you're going to go with to impress Meghan?

McCain is like John F. Kennedy only if Kennedy thought the Chinese were trying to install missiles in Cuba.

Memo to Al Gore, he name-checked you. You need to slap him down. Hard.

Want an example of media bias?
Joe Lieberman gets a lot more attention than Lincoln Chafee

Good point, RKA. Faced with a choice between the preening spotlight junkie who's been wrong about everything for a decade, and the mild-mannered, halting-of-speech guy who's gotten pretty much everything right, the MSM goes to Lieberman.

That's pretty damn sad.

What I would like to know is why Lieberman is still allowed to have any connection to the Democratic party?

If Carville wants to go looking for a real Judas, Lieberman is the prototype.

Since I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat, I'm neither excited nor upset over Joe Lieberman's endorsement of McCain and attack on today's Democratic Party. But I do find many of the previous comments to be amusing. They're mostly variations on the theme that Lieberman is a traitorous warmongering neocon who will have no influence on the outcome of the 2008 election.

The reality is a bit more complex. John McCain's strategy is clearly to paint his Democratic opponent (especially in the likely case that it's Obama) as a hard-left ideological extremist who will do a poor job of defending America against Islamic terrorists. McCain's target audience will be independents and moderate, blue-collar "Reagan" Democrats, i.e., the undecided middle which decides most elections. The combination of Joe Lieberman's support and Rush Limbaugh's and Ann Coulter's attacks will put McCain in an excellent position to make that sales pitch.

Florida is already leaning Republican. It has a popular Republican governor, and it went solidly for Bush in 2004 after the photo-finish in 2000. The Democratic primary fiasco further reduces Obama's chances there. Lieberman is popular in Florida, especially among the Jewish community, and spent huge amounts of timing campaigning there in 2000. If he campaigns heavily for McCain, it will cement Florida's electoral votes into the Republican column.

Lieberman may make Connecticut competitive for McCain. Even if it remains in the Democratic column, the Democratic nominee will have to expend extra time and resources to keep it there.

Elsewhere, Lieberman provides some marginal attraction to undecided Democratic voters to go with McCain. I doubt that he'll have a huge effect, but in very close states it could be enough to tip the scales.

The main thing is that Lieberman's support has no downside for McCain. There is no voter who will react unfavorably to Lieberman's endorsement of McCain, and consequently decide to vote for the Democratic nominee, who wasn't already planning to vote for the Democratic nominee.

The only way that Lieberman could hurt McCain is if McCain tried to select him as the Republican VP candidate. That would spark a revolt among a lot of Republicans. But it's also not going to happen. Instead, Lieberman will give a speech at the Republican convention (a la Zell Miller) endorsing McCain, and he'll be wildly cheered by the the convention as a convert, just as Miller was.

As far as Lieberman's political future is concerned, I see no reason why he won't be able to parlay the same combination of Republicans, Independents, and a quarter of the Democrats, into a winning coalition of voters to re-elect him to the U.S. Senate as an independent in 2012. The Move-on/Kos/anti-war branch of the Democratic Party will do everything in their power to defeat him, but then they did everything they could to defeat him in 2006 and failed.

Meanwhile, Lieberman won't lose his seniority or committee positions in the Senate as long as he's willing to caucus with the Democrats. It doesn't matter if the Democratic Senate majority increases in 2008, because it might decrease again in 2010, and they're not going to risk alienating a potentially decisive vote.

Did you guys expect anything else? If the last 6 years have proved anything, especially when the war is involved, the media will always always trust the person who got it wrong over who got it right.

What a sad little site. Dozens of people quack-quacking the same tired prejudices to each other. Why do you waste your time?

You all shout that Lieberman has no clout; sounds like you're whistling in the dark. You forget that when you knocked him off the Democrat ticket, he was comfortably re-elected Senator on an independent line in Connecticut, a very liberal state, running against both a Democrat Republican opponents.

He is poison to you people, but he commands lots of affection among moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans around the country-- and is even respected by Christian conservatives, who can't stand McCain.

He is also respected by most Jews, especially those who are already worried that Obama is so supportive of a "reverend" who thinks today's Jews are thieves who stole their identity from blacks. You're gonna have a real big Jewish problem on your hands in November, and Lieberman will be part of it, God bless him.

barry, or is it Harry, I take it you are happy with the last 8 years and want 4 more. So happy in fact that you are willing to paint the Democratic party as a party of anti-Semites when in fact there are thousands of liberal Jews. The vast majority of Jewish people vote Liberal, come to think of it, because they are a lot smarter than you.

hehehe...it is amusing isn't it. well i personally welcome joe to the independent party! he seems like me to go where his heart and mind lead him instead of just voting party lines.
it's not a waste of time though barry :) there are a lot of good strong arguments of ideas and ideology mixed into all the quacking.

barry - Are you serious? CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC VOTERS knocked Lieberman off the ticket. Democratic leaders, however, kowtowed and clamored to support his independent run, even after vowing to support the Democratic nominee in the race. And guess what? A majority of Lieberman's votes? They were from REPUBLICANS. What independants that voted for him, too, did so mostly because of familiarity, rather than agreement with his policies.

And you know, voting and speaking your mind? That's fine in general. What Lieberman has done though is made himself essentially a single-issue politician (that being 'teh Warz!'), and showing himself to be willing to throw his old party under the bus because they don't want to bomb Iran to glass.

RE dp's assertion that Lieberman would make Conn competitive against Obama
"A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows McCain trailing in head-to-head contests with either potential Democratic nominee. Barack Obama leads McCain 52 percent to 35 percent"
As for the rest I would encourage people to read the cover story in the New York Times magazine today.
A profile of Congressman Cole who is the chair of the Republican House reelection committee.
The voters have moved beyond the Republican party.

you know what? it seems to me there may really be something about that connection between old hippies/democratic party! i've never heard so much BOMB talk. it's like you need to return to your youth and fight the good fight again. really, what should the country do when our freedoms are threatened? diplomacy is surely where you begin and the arrogance and disregard of bush wouldn't be argued by anyone but, yaw have us all in WW3 the minute mccain takes office.

You do love your generalizations rebekah,

rebekah - Considering McCain's 'Bomb Bomb Iran' 'joke', his continued misidentification of our enemies in Iraq, his support of an indefinite armed U.S. presence there, and his otherwise echoing of Bush's rhetoric (despite horrible attempts at insisting that he's "different"), is it any wonder? Many of us see McCain as not only continuing Bush's legacy of idiocy in the middle east, but expanding it way beyond our actual capabilities.

i do yes paul and i believe in stereotypes too... other people touted for their gifted intellect must to or we wouldn't be hearing all this talk of typical this or that would we :)

kryptik,
yaw are going to have to decide if that was a senior moment or subliminal on his part...i can keep up. and if yaw keep painting him with his associates brush i.e. bush we get to keep wright in so make up your mind please. if you want me to judge obama on his thoughts and ideologies and actions stop the cheap and lazy 4 more years of the same.

Joe is absolutely correct. I've been a Democrat my whole life and, like Joe, I'm disgusted by the combination of wishful thinking, timidity and rank opportunism that seems to impel most supposed Democratic Party leaders -- and both remaining candidates -- to impose a straightjacket of ideological nonsense on American foreign policy. The notion that Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller have anything in common, however, is preposterous. Miller was among the last of the southern conservatives to shift to the GOP, while Joe is and always has been a liberal in the tradition of FDR, Truman and Jack Kennedy, as I am. If Joe were just a conservative outlier within the Democratic Party, he would have flipped the Senate to Republican control two years ago, but he stuck with the Democratic caucus because he is not a conservative or a Republican.

If left-leaning Democrats think they can push everyone who believes in a strong defense out of "their" party, they will lose many more elections, beginning with the one this November.

jb When Joe accused Democrats of giving comfort to the enemy by questioning the president you will have to excuse some of us for taking offense.
The idea that a strong defense means both blind support of the president and supporting the Iraq debacle has run it's course.
Either that or a large majority of the American people are traitors.

Who left the door open let the concern trolls overrun the place?

I've been a die-hard conservative Republican all my life and I'm concerned about the leftward direction of the Republican Party. McCain's embrace of the far-leftwing communist radical Lieberman just confirms that those left-leaning neocons like William Kristol have taken over the Republican Party. John Birch would turn over in his grave! We Republicans will never win another election as long as the Republican National Committee bows to these leftist radicals.

omgawd! paul...i appreciate every single word of that statement i would go so far as to say i endorse it! i hope that doesn't make me a democrat. :) bravo! never give up the right to question! it's a basic tenant of freedom and democracy.

Concern trolls and highly affected "independents"

Michael:

You DO understand that Lieberman isn't a Democrat anymore, don't you? I mean, your piece reads like "a Democrat criticizing his own," and doesn't seem to reflect an awareness that Lieberman is speaking as an outsider; about a party more and more ideologically distanced from his bloody, bloody world view.

Joe can take a flying f***.

Strong defense my ass. It's the Democrats that are trying to rescue our military and national security infrastructure from the massive incompetence of the Bush Administration that led to the terrorist attack on 911, the failure in Afghanistan, and the massive, catastrophic folly in Iraq. Stupid, idiotic decisions by Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the utter blind incompetence of George W. Bush have wrecked our foreign policy and military infrastructure for a generation. Stupid, blind ideologues are the only people who refuse to admit just how deeply catastrophic the blunders.

McCain has just exactly these moral midgets on his advisory team. Why would any rational person give the likes of William Kristol, James Woolsey, and Robert Kagan the benefit of the doubt? Name one single time they've been correct about ANYTHING. You can't do it.

Michael is required to bash the Democrats somewhere in every post, so to make his quota he cherry-picks a statement by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and conveniently forgets that Lieberman left the Democratic Party. But that's okay, because it still qualifies as a hit on the Democrats. That'll make his boss Jay Carney, ex-Huckabee-humper, now McCain-booster, happy.

Michael seems to be suggesting that Lieberman has passed from being the principled, internationalist liberal, to being just another peddler of right-wing propaganda. That is correct, but many thought that fact obvious several years ago, which is why we worked to get him out of the party.

Lieberman is another member of the centrist cult that gets a free ride from the MSM, just like his hero, McCain the Baloney.

"Holy Joe is the sellout, not the Democratic Party. Prepare to get kicked out of the caucus when we get more than 51 Senate seats, Joe."

Gosh, a breathtaking stand on principle. We're shunning you, Joe, just as soon as it doesn't matter.

Lieberman is exactly right, actually. The Democratic Party has become absolutely gutless. The proof is in Samantha Power's comments about how Obama would deal with Iraq when in office. She dared say he would review the situation and make a decision based on what was best for the country. Now she's a non-person. In order to remain viable, a Dem has to say irrational things as if he or she believes them.

What will you all say when your candidate gets crushed in November by an unabashed war supporter? Well, get your alibis ready.

I see rebekah is still clinging to that "senior moment" dodge. Trouble is that the rest of us have already seen the movie. It doesn't have a happy ending. (In fact some of us are entertaining doubts as to whether it actually ends at all..)

I imagine the Senator knows how Henry "Scoop" Jackson felt when he attempted to save his party from the zealots on the far left.

The ridiculous conceit of the small in stature but grand in self importance, is the fancy illusion that they are the pivot point between international liberalism and you. Any disagreement with them is a disagreement with the traditions of liberalism itself, a challenge to Scoop Jackson, not a disagreement with Joe Lieberman or John McCain. Lieberman and his crew of zealots invaded the wrong country, on false pretenses. They ignored reality and threw facts to the wind. Now they accuse the rest of us of abandoning liberalism because we disagreed with them about getting into the quagmire in the first place.

Lieberman has been reduced to peddling right wing talking points. A disagreement with him is a show of support to liberalism, not an abandonment of it.

Actually Jackson was a zealot from the extreme right. The moderates of the Democratic Party rejected his extremist positions, just as they reject Lieberman's extremist neoconservative views. The moderates saved the Democratic Party of Thomas Jefferson from Jackson's zealotry, not the other way around.

i'm not the clingy type paul. i merely asked that yaw take one stance or the other. either senile or sending subliminal messages. since i am so obviously not as bright as all of you liberal democrats i prefer that you make points clear to me and my tiny lil brain. i don't mind it being fluid but this seems more tangential.

all of you liberal democrats

See, that's what happens when you overgeneralize. For the record, I have never suggested that he's senile. To conflate me with someone who has is to engage in precisely the sort of muddy thinking that allows people to think that the fight in Iraq has anything to do with 9-11.

All you liberal democrats - all those Muslim terrorists, its the same sloppy thinking and so far its killed thousands needlessly.

No wonder you're Ok with him.

you got me paul...guess i'm just one of those typical white women. does that still apply if i'm creole and just think like a typical white woman?

To those who have accused me of attacking the Democratic party or otherwise peddling right wing talking points in this post: I don't get your point. I wrote a post that criticized Joe Lieberman for acting like Zell Miller, which is not a compliment. I pointed out that both used an argument that is intended to avoid "reasoned debate" and scare independent voters. I titled the piece Say it ain't so, Joe. And still I am accused of hackery on behalf of McCain. Would you have had the same criticism if someone else posted this on Daily Kos? Do you see your role as commenters to engage in discussion with each other or me, or just to fire missiles in the information wars? This all confuses me. I wonder if I should keep paying as much attention as I do to the comments. Help me out. If your objection is that I should have said he was no longer a democrat explicitly, when I said clearly he was rejected by his party, supporting McCain and spreading GOP talking points, I am not convinced. (He is still known by most of the country as a Dem, as Gore's VP.) If your argument is that this post is some sort of conspiracy to ignore Lincoln Chafee, you have lost me. If your argument is that anything I write or that is published in TIME is tainted by demon Moloch, then I have better ways to spend my time. If your argument is that simply by repeating a critical comment about Democrats is in itself an attack on Democrats, then I wonder what other phrases or things that happen you would never like me to repeat. If you were just trying to bait me into a defensive response, because that in itself is a victory against the demon, well I guess you win and I lose.

I found very little of this comment section directed at you Michael so your reaction seems a little over the top.
Your hometown Nats win in dramatic fashion, be of better cheer.

Michael unless you haven't noticed there are a number of trolls on this site. Some of them pretend to be things they are not in order to embarrass the thing they are pretending to be. If I was you I'd ignore them like the rest of us do. Not everyone missed the fact that you were basically accusing Lieberman of spreading right-wing talking points, for which you ought to be commended, given how Lieberman is usually treated with kid gloves.

does that still apply if i'm creole...

Of course.

Overgeneralization and judging individuals by the actions of people other than themselves is exceedingly common. Race is certainly not the only categorization that is subject to the treatment.

If I said something like "Anybody who supports McCain is a warmonger, I'd not only be wrong but I'd be engaging in overgeneralization. If I said instead McCain is deliberately pushing people's buttons by using "Al Qaeda®" when he means Shiite insurgents" then I'm not overgeneralizing at all. Opinions vary if I were to go on to say "And anyone who falls for it is an idiot"

Michael Scherer, your post was perfectly reasonable. I am a very strong critic of the media - and I'm sure I'll have criticisms about future posts you write - but this post is not pro-McCain, or "peddling right wing talking points." Maybe I misunderstood the post, but I thought its purpose was to illuminate the strategy behind the right wing talking points.

Also, I think many of us here - I'm definitely one of them - have a tendency to only directly comment on a post if we disagree with it. Otherwise we quickly move on to other topics in the thread. So the comments here may be skewed towards a negative take on posts, which is what happened on this thread.

I can't believe I wrote something in defense of the MSM... See, we do appreciate it when the media looks at Republicans critically!

I might add, that I can't think of any qualification more important for being the Commander in Cheif of the most powerful armed force on the planet than being able to correctly identify the enemy.

Improving the economy or providing health insurance really pales in importance.

Would you have had the same criticism if someone else posted this on Daily Kos?

I think this is more of a TalkingPointsMemo/Glenn Greenwald crowd.

I think this is a bit of a silly post on your part, but it's difficult to attack substantively. It's a fact (though difficult to quantify) that Lieberman is not well-liked or respected out here in the hinterlands, while he is (inexplicably) still worshiped as some kind of God of moderation in Georgetown.

This post really is a piece of Broderthink that is beneath you. You've got to expect a hostile response to that.

And one more thing: your claims that Time magazine is some bastion of truth-to-power journalism ring false. When was the last time any of you broke an important story?

Mr. Scherer

Our points of criticism include the following:

1. You don't ask tough questions of McCain.

2. You hold McCain accountable to a lower standard of veracity and consistency than the other candidates.

3. You spend much of your time writing about peripheral campaign nonsense (Meghan's blog).

4. You don't fact check assertions made by McCain staffers.

5. You don't accept that there is a fundamental breach of journalistic ethics involved in acting like a good buddy on the bozo bus.

6. You don't respond directly and specifically to questions we ask you on this blog.

7. You seem to think you are doing us a big favor by participating on this blog. Please note that it is your job to satisfy us, not our job to satisfy you.

Maybe I (and others) are reading too much into this. But it sounds like you're suggesting that Lieberman will be a big asset. If that's not what you mean, then I apologize for my criticism

Michael.

I'm sorry if I hit a sore spot. I liked the post, and I especially appreciated the title, since I'm a lifelong baseball fan. I'm sorry I didn't express that.

Let me try to explain. The post itself was fine. Overall, your colleagues who post on Swampland spend an inordinate amount of time bashing the Democrats and absolutely no time bashing, or criticizing the Republicans *in any way.* Your colleagues are given to posting wild, unsubstantiated speculations stated as fact about the Democrats, as well as twisted and even fabricated quotes and pieces about the Democratic candidates and leadership. They do it day after day after day. Okay fine. I'm asking for some equal treatment for the Republicans. Cox was taken off the McCain beat and she referred our questions to you, stating that you had taken over the McCain beat. I haven't seen you give the same treatment to the Republicans and McCain as the daily wild speculations and tea readings that the Democrats get. Not that Cox did -- she did the breathless OMG!!! stuff on McCain. You give the flimsy excuse that you'll do more of that once the Democrats settle on a candidate. I say that's a crock of cr@p. That's what everyone in DC says, and I call bullsh!t on that. I doubt that anybody in DC is going to examine McCain's positions very closely. I challenge you to do it.

Your bias, and Swampland's bias against the Democrats and for McCain is painfully obvious. Please don't make me post the stats on that, it is obvious. Look at this front page. All anti-Democrat except for one pro-McCain post. Now why shouldn't that p!ss us off? There is plenty of McCain stuff to write about, but you totally give it all a pass, don't even bother to mention any of it. Are you prevented from ruffling the pro-McCainians like Jay Carney? That's a serious question.

-j

If your argument is that simply by repeating a critical comment about Democrats is in itself an attack on Democrats, then I wonder what other phrases or things that happen you would never like me to repeat.

See, that isn't it. At all. It's that no one on this blog *ever* repeats a critical comment about Republicans, or *ever* analyzes their policy positions, or *ever* observes their possibly or blatantly illegal campaigning. Do you see the difference? You know, you might consider writing a piece about Mr. Campaign Finance Reform being in violation of campaign finance reform laws. There has been a formal complaint filed. But, silence. Isn't that something about the campaign, and of a little more relevance that the wild, unsubstantiated speculations about a Pelosi fundraising letter? What do you think? Are you prohibited by your employers from touching that subject? Or by peer pressure?

Lieberman has been independant for quite a while in terms of his thinking. I think he is one of many people that can't be described as solely liberal or conservative. If things trend the way that they do, Lieberman might just want to switch parties at some point in the next few years.

Michael:

You explained a divide in the Democratic Party that most on here are either unaware of or as I have said in previous posts, continue to wear rose colored glasses.

If their points of view are challenged they group like a pack of playground bullies to throw 3rd grade remarks back thinking this is an adult way to debate various talking points.

I am one that I would like you to point out the flaws of the Republican Party, but at the same time also point out the deficits of the Democrats as well.

Keep up the great work, and ignore the swampland goons who will never be satisfied.

" He (JL) is still known by most of the country as a Dem"
Michael @11:25 PM
That may have something to do with things like this:
"He(JL) is not just condemning HIS party's position on Iraq"
Michael @ !:03 PM

The [JL's] message: The once noble Democratic Party has been taken over by peaceniks and radicals, who are weakening the country and threatening our security.

You are right, Michael, that is Lieberman's message. It is completely untrue. There is not a single "peacenik" or "radical" at the national level in the Democratic Party. The very closest anyone could come to being legitimately called a "peacenik" perhaps, was our dearly departed Paul Wellstone, and that fine man was no DFH radical *at all*.

It's that you and your colleagues in the press let stuff like that stand unchallenged that provokes the kind of response that you are referring to in your followup comment. You can't even name one "peacenik" or "radical" in Congress, or can you? If so, please do.

Speaking for myself, I'm a labor Democrat, pretty middle of the road. I deeply resent being characterized by you people in the MSM, Joe Klein, the Politico boyz, even the leadership of my own party, as some kind of left-wing radical. I want my country and my Constitutional Democracy back. Since when is that "radical?"

You know, Michael, thanks for coming down here into the basement with us rubes. Maybe I do hit back too hard and you don't deserve it. It's frustrating, is all, when the Republicans get the kid glove treatment and we rubes get smeared again and again with the 1972-era labels.

Michael:

I apologize for the (typically) dyspeptic tone of my post.

I guess my criticism WAS that you weren't explicit enough about Lieberman's rift with the Democratic party. The first time I read this, it seemed as though this was being portrayed as a Democrat doing some "truth-telling" to his own party. When you talked about the "message" and Lieberman's "revenge" I think you dignified what went on a bit too much.

If it were me, I'd characterize it as the bitter, malevolent, senile mutterings of a corrupt gang-member whose pigeon has started to get wise.

The problem with the post is that it's all things to all people. It might as well read "Joe Lieberman thinks Democrats are weaklings - details at eleven!"

If your like Rusty, who thinks he's simply telling a truth, then your own view will be reinnforced. If your like Joe Klein who is afraid he might be telling a truth, its going to reinforce that view. And if your like me, who's really tired of being lied about, its going to be offensive.

Only those who have enough background to know all about "traditionally [...] scaring independent voters than with actual reasoned debate of the issues" are going to actually understand your point. Most of us assume you're targeting low-information folks and then assume the worst.

I just read Michael Hirsch's puff piece on McCain at newsweek. com.

He actually refers to Lieberman as McCain's fellow "centrist".

Can you believe that anyone in the MSM actually refers to McCain as a centrist?

Either McCain is a big fat liar when he calls himself a conservative, which means his "straight talker" schtick is a big fat lie, or once again we have an example of the MSM refusal to face facts about McCain.

Michael, the above criticism isn't aimed at you.

and you see placed before you the explanation for joe's point.
you only thought you had a right to write what you wanted because it was your column.
it doesn't really matter what you write they are going to say the same.
now you see why he left?

I wanted to add: It isn't fair to compare the reception to what you wrote to what might be expected on the other sites you mention. Frankly, participants at those sites have been "onto" Lieberman for about three years, now. Lieberman's broad attack on Dems wouldn't be a shockeroo there.

Southern.

Glenzilla has a post on the Newsweek piece today.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

James, thanks for the link.

I am really tired of the nonsense the media spouts about McCain.

As I said, either call him a liar when he refers to himself as a conservative or call him a conservative, not a centrist.

I see nothing centrist about his economic "policy".

Michael, buddy, I think I need to clarify the targets of 99% of my criticisms: its the media as a whole, not you or any other of your colleagues in particular.

So when I rightly say that Linc chafee is getting less coverage than Jow Lieberman, I am not singling you out in particular...I am criticizing the obvious beltway meta-narrative that give more media oxygen to those who leave the dems than those who leave the republicans.

It's easy to erect a straw man of conspiracy theory and dismiss my criticisms as part of another world. But I never claim that there your editors and the producers of cable TV shows are meeting in a smoke-filled room to subvert the will of the people.

I do think that the corporate media for a variety of reasons does shade coverage to meet its own self-interests.

Jow Scarborough admited as such on Bill Maher on March 7th:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/27/112336/675/775/485353

So, Michael, don't take anything that I say personally. I think you are fine individual and a fine reporter who happens to be working in a corporate media environment that is corrupt and worthy of the criticsm I and others make at it.

Look, we have compassion for the fact that you draw your paycheck from these corporate overloards and that your ability to speak out is limited.

We appreciate people like you and Karen who do engage us and that you give us this forum in which to vent our concerns. I know that some of the other commenters get really pissed from time to time and get too personal. But think of it this way, when a commenter says in essense, "God damn Michael Scherer" it;s not that they really hate you all that much its that they are venting outrage rooted in real concerns about the media and taking it out on you. Now, that doesn't excuse excessive vitriol from commenters, but hopefully you can understand why people get upset.

(By the way, I am working on my major speech to help bridge the age-old divisions between MSM bloggers and their commenters!)

So, Michael, don't take any of this too personally. You are the adult here, we are but your bratty children. Don't let us get under your skin.

If we didn't like Swampland we wouldn't be here generating hits to your website.

Here is the concluding portion of Glenn's column on McCain's "centrism:"

The indisputable fact is that McCain, on foreign policy issues, holds views far to the Right and far outside of mainstream American public opinion. In Media World, the GOP presidential nominee is always a centrist, a new kind of Republican, a trans-partisan pragmatist, while the Democratic nominee is always just a dogmatic liberal. So in one sense, this is just part for the media course (just go read how George Bush and Dick Cheney were relentlessly depicted during the 2000 campaign).

But depicting McCain as a "centrist" is an attempt to mainstream decidedly extreme positions, and worse, it obscures and distorts one of the vital issues that ought to be decided in the election: namely, whether McCain's radical foreign policy views and war-based national security approach -- grounded in the defining Bush/Cheney doctrine -- is something America wants to continue. One can and should debate whether that mindlessly belligerent Kristol/Lieberman/Bolton approach is constructive and ought to continue. The view that we should continue to invade, bomb, occupy and control the governance of various Middle Eastern countries -- while managing much of the rest of the world -- is something the country should debate. But by no metric is there anything "centrist" about McCain's view that we should.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

Please exclude me from RKA's characterization. I am not a child, let alone "bratty." I'm an adult middle of the road Democrat who has been a media critic since the 1980's. The owners of Swampland invite and encourage comments from us rubes and I intend to use it until such time as comments are discontinued or the owners see fit to ban me.

"But think of it this way, when a commenter says in essense, 'God damn Michael Scherer' it;s not that they really hate you all that much its that they are venting outrage rooted in real concerns about the media and taking it out on you."

Very diplomatically put, RKA, and largely true.

Then there are some, like HH, who are saying something closer to "there is no doubt that Michael Scherer possesses weapons of mass destruction", and would impose "sanctions" by not respecting him until he bows to our outlandish demands, like asking McCain questions that will make everyone uncomfortable.

Of course, the only way we were not going to war with Iraq was if Saddam gave up all his power and turned himself in. And the only way Michael Scherer is going to gain the respect of people like HH is by doing things that will probably cost him his current job. Is it reasonable to expect that kind of sacrifice?

I don't know, but I sure would love to see a post on it, Michael.

Of course, it would undoubtedly be decried as more media-centric self-absorption, like Joe's recent post was. But for what it's worth, I'd keep reading the comments, and just remember that you can't please everyone.

"Can you believe that anyone in the MSM actually refers to McCain as a centrist?" - Southern Bell, I am actually going to play Devil's Advocate on this point. Is it possible that both the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted so far to the right that McCain actually is a centrist by the twisted standards of current American electoral politics? He does admit that Global Warming exists, he doesn't want to immediately deport 12 million immigrants, and he isn't convinced that the biggest problems America faces are abortion and gay people. That automatically means he is to the left of a lot of Republicans. I agree that his economic policy and foreign policy disqualify him from being called a centrist in an absolute sense of the word, but if we only talked about politics in absolute terms how many left-wing politicians would there be? Not Clinton, not Obama and certainly not Reid or Pelosi.

I think a good argument can be made for both sides of this debate. It's undoubtedly true that by accepting the idea that McCain is a centrist the MSM have completely slanted the parameters of the political spectrum; If McCain is a centrist, Nader is practically a Communist, which is clearly not true. But at the same time the media does need to distinguish between McCain and his Republican colleagues who are to the right of him. That is a real distinction, although that real distinction doesn't make McCain a centrist in absolute terms. I suppose that some people would say that the MSM should adopt absolute standards and say that McCain is a right-winger, Duncan Hunter is even further to the right, and Clinton and Obama are basically centrists. But is that a feasible option? Wouldn't right-wing people, such as Ron Paul's supporters, get really upset?

I am undecided on this question. But I don't think this is an easy question with a clear answer. Maybe the MSM needs to do something they almost never do, which is put things in an historical context. It's unfortunately necessary to turn to history for examples of left-wing politicians. And if we don't do that we end up accepting the two false ideas that the full diversity political thought is reflected by politicians today, and that a man who is as radically right-wing as McCain is by historical and absolute standards can be accurately called a centrist.

One other point, which I will illustrate with a quote from Greenwald's blog, in reference to Mukasey's contention that not granting telecom amnesty would result in the terrorists learning our intelligence-gathering secrets:

"Mike Mukasey was a long-time federal judge and so I feel perfectly comfortable calling that what it is: a brazen lie."

It's fine to say "Oh, that rascally Lieberman is at it again," but I think many of your critics would respect it if you also just came out and said "what he's saying here is a complete load". Alternately, you could say "there is some merit to that claim", or "that claim is so overly broad as to be meaningless". Whatever.

And the only way Michael Scherer is going to gain the respect of people like HH is by doing things that will probably cost him his current job.

How does this follow? According to ME's claims, Time-Warner-Moloch management does not interfere with his writing at all. He is free to write anything he pleases. He can ask McCain anything he wants on the bozo bus.

Either you accept this claim, and have to explain ME's curious refusal to get to the bottom of McCain's beliefs or you must conclude that ME and TWM are not playing straight with us.

Which is it?

we end up accepting the two false ideas that the full diversity political thought is reflected by politicians today

If Time-Warner-Moloch wished to accurately inform Americans of the nature of our political spectrum, its writers would point out that Clinton and Obama would be to the RIGHT of the Conservative party in that Bolshevik bastion, the United Kingdom. Anyone tampering with the National Health Service in the UK would be burned at the stake.

Americans have a pathetically narrow set of policy choices represented in the three candidates the plutocracy has put forward.

War in Iraq forever vs. war in Iraq for a few more years.

Sharply increasing health care costs and more uninsured vs. sharply increasing health care costs and slightly subsidized unaffordable insurance.

Total control of politics by big-money media propaganda vs. a slight chance that the "fairness doctrine" might be re-established.

That is your choice, American sheeple. Now let's pretend we live in a Democracy.

I do accept that they're not playing straight with us. But unlike you, Michael Scherer doesn't have magical anonymity, and so he chooses, understandably, not to act as you would have him act (with no negative repercussions to yourself).

If Michael Scherer loses his job doing your bidding, will you support him, HH? Will you quit your own job as a show of solidarity? Or will you just congratulate him on his integrity and continue doing whatever it is you do when you're not posting here?

Well, I mean that's a false choice and a red herring, Observer. Michael is going to get fired for asking McCain a hard question? That would be interesting, wouldn't it? And to carry it farther, Time would fire him for asking a hard question, and he would be unable to find work anywhere else in DC? When William effin Kristol still has a job? The state of DC journalism is in far worse shape than *even I* though it was!

If Michael Scherer loses his job doing your bidding, will you support him, HH? Will you quit your own job as a show of solidarity? Or will you just congratulate him on his integrity and continue doing whatever it is you do when you're not posting here?

Observer:

Do you grasp the enormity of what you are proposing here? What you are suggesting is that we all quietly accept the corruption of TWM and the corrupt impact on Michael Scherer and THEN pretend that we are engaging in honest discourse. It is absolutely stunning to me that you have so normalized corruption that you would have all of us get accustomed to the stench and pretend that we can't smell it.

This is the characteristic of life under a dictatorship: everyone agrees not to speak the truth. But the American plutocracy doesn't use clubs and guns; it just gives you a pink slip and takes away your medical care. I don't GAS if Michael Scherer loses his high-status job. It is the civic duty of an American political journalist to serve the interests of the American people, not a corporate propaganda mill. How rotten has our society become if Michael Scherer's paycheck is more important than his principles?

I'm talking about "inappropriate" questions like "Should the United States still be fighting in Vietnam?" You don't think that would be seen as crossing the line?

Why would that be crossing the line? It's an appropriate question and McCain himself talks about his Vietnam experience and he talks about the scar that war left on my country, and one of the reasons he wants 100 years in Iraq is to avoid another scar like that wrt Iraq, during his proposed term of office. Just how the hell do you deem that an inappropriate question when McCain himself flogs it every chance he gets? Because the answer would make *you* uncomfortable?

Ok, James, for the sake of argument let's reverse the characterization.

You are the adult and Michael is the child.

The way to change a child's behavior is not go overboard in yelling at them all the time. They just develop self-esteem issues (or in the journalist world, self loathing) and they tune us out and become entrenched in their behaviors.

I think Michael is younger and less set in his ways than a Joe Klein, an old dog unlikely to ever learn new tricks. So I think we could do a better job of being constructive in our tone.

Now i am not going to point fingers at you, HH, or anyone else because I am just as guilty of going into rants myslef, but its clear that Michael is talking some of this personally. And I don't want him to stop taking what we say seriously because we go too far in trashing him.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner"is going to be far more effective in the long run...

This conversation is like one of those booster rockets on the Challenger shuttle, spinning off into oblivion. I am going to lose my job? For asking a hard question? Not going to happen. Never in a million years. It is fine to critique the media, but I am telling you you are off base if that is your belief, that we quiver at the thought of doing our jobs. It is far more likely that a reporter asking a fierce question would upset the campaign, or the candidate would ignore the question. But, at least during the primary, McCain was actually far better than most candidates at dealing with this.

Here is an experiment. Tell me here what questions you would ask McCain that are not otherwise being asked. But I have two restrictions: The question has to be formulated primarily to produce new information, not just level a political attack or bounce DNC oppo. (For instance, questions like "Why can't you control your temper?" or "Why shouldn't American's be outraged that you are breaking campaign finance laws?" are bad questions.) Second, the questions should not be retreads. They should be designed to bring up substantial new information that McCain has not previously addressed.

I may very well regret opening this door, and I am not offering to ask anything that is suggested. But let's see what happens.

HH:
"This is the characteristic of life under a dictatorship: everyone agrees not to speak the truth."

I agree, but again, I ask: What do you sacrifice by speaking the truth?

I will not accuse you of hypocrisy when I do not know your situation, and just because you don't sacrifice anything doesn't make the truth you speak any less truthful.

But you feign outrage that people would act in their own selfish interests. Is it wrong, to sacrifice someone else's good for your own good? Yes. Do we all do it? Yes.

I'm talking about "inappropriate" questions like "Should the United States still be fighting in Vietnam?" You don't think that would be seen as crossing the line?

What could be a more appropriate question to a bellicose candidate that has built his entire career on his Vietnam experience? The reason you think that this would be "crossing the line" is that it would likely compel McCain to declare that he believes it was a mistake to withdraw from Vietnam.

American militarism has mutated into an unconditional imperative to SUPPORT THE TROOPS that is strangely decoupled from anything our troops are told to do. Thus, McCain's suffering as a POW generates a huge empathetic response from troop supporters. Connecting his service in the war to bom